POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Dutch Pentagon Attack Recreation A Fraud? - Simulator Not Certified, Not A 757

(Pilotsfor911truth.org) - Some may be aware of a video in which Dutch Researchers at the National Aerospace Laboratory recreate the Pentagon Attack in a flight simulator with what they claim is an "inexperienced pilot", in an attempt to prove that it is "not impossible" for Hani Hajour --the alleged hijacker pilot of American Airlines Flight 77-- to have performed such a maneuver. Others, mostly anonymous, attempt to use this outdated video in a poor attempt to discredit seasoned 757/767 Captains speaking out. Since the release of "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" featuring interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines who have attempted to recreate the maneuvers reported on 9/11, Pilots For 9/11 Truth have once again come under fire. Captains from United, American and other airlines have attempted to recreate the maneuvers performed on 9/11 and found it highly unlikely to impossible for any inexperienced pilot to have accomplished such maneuvers (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" and "Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org for more details).

The Dutch simulation test was performed prior to the release of the Flight Data Recorder information, so clearly the Dutch researchers did not have any scientific data to examine the maneuver, nor implement the maneuver properly. Their main focus was to debunk claims made that the turning maneuver was impossible, which we agree is possible according to the data now released. However, other aspects of the flight path are impossible (See "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" at http://pilotsfor911truth.org).

<snip>

After review of the simulation, here are the unknowns. They claim to use a speed of 800 km/h, which is 30 knots less than reported by the 9/11 Commission and the since released Flight Data Recorder information. A 30 knot difference at such high speeds can be a major factor in control effectiveness and structural integrity (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"). They also do not show the simulator reaching this speed. We also don't know the exact maneuver performed. Although they show a diagram prior to entering the simulator, there is no way of knowing if they actually followed such a flight path. We also don't know type of aircraft configuration nor any weather conditions they may have set for the maneuver. Although the sky was clear on 9/11, there was an almost direct cross wind at 10 knots which is a factor when maneuvering (See METAR's at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon). We also don't know experience level of the simulator pilot. The video compares Hani Hanjour to Mr. Ruigrok, the simulator pilot, as "inexperienced" and having flight time in light aircraft and flight simulators, but how much? Mr. Ruigrok works for the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR). It is fair to say he has a lot of time in simulators and is very familiar with such a device. As Mr. Ruigrok enters the simulator, the narrator goes on to state Mr Ruigrok had "practice" as "Hani probably did too" suggesting Mr. Ruigrok has practiced the attack maneuver prior to the taping as Hani "probably" would have done prior to 9/11. This is scientific research? No, this is creating more experience for an alleged "inexperienced pilot" based on speculation. When asked, NLR refused to offer credentials and experience level of Mr. Ruigrok in order to determine their definition of "inexpereinced". (See below).

This is what we do know about their simulation:

It is not based on data; The crash logic was disabled; The over-speed warnings were disabled; They did not include topographical obstacles; The light poles on Washington Blvd are non-existent, and, most importantly, the simulator is not a 757! All of these are major factors when attempting to recreate a real-life maneuver which Pilots For 9/11 Truth have shown, based on data, is impossible.

Keep in mind, jumping in any old simulator attempting to hit the Pentagon is very easy to do. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. But for the purpose of this recreation attempt, the Dutch researchers claim they are a "...technological institute [focusing] on scientific research and.. therefore only present information to the media directly based on this research" (See email exchanges below). NLR claims to be presenting a scientific approach for the purpose of performing the maneuvers reported and impacting the area of the Pentagon attacked, concluding the attack as possible.

On first attempt during the taping of the video, Mr. Ruigrok hits the top northwest corner of the building which would have spread large pieces of wreckage everywhere, unlike the alleged object that hit the Pentagon which left very little wreckage. The second hit plowed into the front lawn and foundation. No such damage is observed at the Pentagon. The third time looks like a more direct hit but again plows into the foundation.

Conclusion - It took 3 tries on video to get it close. How many times did Mr. Ruigrok "practice" prior as the video admits? The simulator crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the simulator would have crashed long before getting to the Pentagon due to excessive speed (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"). The over speed warning also being disabled is another major factor as it's a huge distraction to the pilot while flying. Combined with the fact the light poles on Washington Blvd are missing and the fact the simulator is not that of a 757, how can anyone take such recreation for this purpose (ad-hoc and incidental) as scientific?

Pilots For 9/11 Truth contacted the National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherlands in an attempt to clarify some details of this simulator test.

These were the questions asked:

1. Prior to the above simulation, how long has Mr. Ruigrok worked for NLR and in what capacity?

2. Prior to above simulation, how much total flight time did Mr. Ruigrok have logged? In what type aircraft? How much time in a 757 Flight simulator?

3. Your video states Mr. Ruigrok has flight time in flight simulators and light aircraft as did Hani Hanjour, the reported Hijacker/pilot of American Airlines Flight 77. As Mr Ruigrok enters the simulator in the video, the narrator goes on to state Mr Ruigrok had some "practice" as "Hani probably did too". How much practice did Mr Ruigrok have flying the maneuver prior to videotaping the maneuver?

4. The speed used for the simulation was stated as 800 km/h. This is 30 knots less than the speeds reported by the 9/11 Commission. Do you have any video tape showing the airspeed during the acceleration to the Pentagon?

5. We noticed the crash logic on your simulator was disabled for this test, or it was not installed. We also notice the over speed warnings were not operating as normal if in fact Mr Ruigrok exceeded Vmo. At what speed over Vmo is the crash logic usually triggered on the simulator used? (red screens, simulator freezes.. .etc)

6. Was the simulator used in this test certified to Level D Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Standards?

And the first reply:

Dear mr. Balsamo,

On request from journalists, NLR has demonstrated in an ad-hoc simulation in a non-certified research full flight simulator that it is not impossible for an inexperienced pilot to perform the flight manoeuvre which has lead to the crash in the Pentagon on 9/11. NLR has not studied the events on 9/11 in detail and can therefore not state anything conclusive about it.

Best regards,

Frank Vos

Bolding emphasis added. The National Aerospace Laboratory uses a simulator which is not certified to compare a real life flight maneuver? Why isn't it certified? Because it doesn't behave like a real airplane? This is scientific research? We attempt to contact Mr. Vos again pointing out we were not looking for a conclusive statement regarding 9/11.

Dear Mr Vos,

I thank you for your prompt reply. However, we were not asking for any conclusive statement regarding 9/11 from your organization. Our inquiry was to the experience level of Mr Ruigrok who performed the simulation. If you would be so kind to review these questions again and perhaps provide more specific answers as to the experience level and practice performed by Mr Ruigrok prior to the taping, it would be much appreciated.

1. Prior to the above simulation, how long has Mr. Ruigrok worked for NLR and in what capacity?

2. Prior to above simulation, how much total flight time did Mr. Ruigrok have logged? In what type aircraft? How much time in a 757 Flight simulator?

3. Your video states Mr. Ruigrok has flight time in flight simulators and light aircraft as did Hani Hanjour, the reported Hijacker/pilot of American Airlines Flight 77. As Mr Ruigrok enters the simulator in the video, the narrator goes on to state Mr Ruigrok had some "practice" as "Hani probably did too". How much practice did Mr Ruigrok have flying the maneuver prior to videotaping the maneuver?

4. The speed used for the simulation was stated as 800 km/h. This is 30 knots less than the speeds reported by the 9/11 Commission. Do you have any video tape showing the airspeed during the acceleration to the Pentagon?

5. We noticed the crash logic on your simulator was disabled for this test, or it was not installed. We also notice the over speed warnings were not operating as normal if in fact Mr Ruigrok exceeded Vmo. At what speed over Vmo is the crash logic usually triggered on the simulator used? (red screens, simulator freezes.. .etc)

6. Was the simulator used in this test certified to Level D Full Flight Simulator (FFS) Standards? (I believe you already answered this question, and that it was not certified. Thank you)

Again, Thank you in advance for any questions you may be able to answer.

The media policy of NLR includes that we do not contribute to any investigations, articles or news items by journalists and media, concerning the events that occured[sic] on 9/11. This guideline concerns in particular the supposed manoeuvres of the flights that day. Our simulation was ad-hoc and incidental. As a technological institute we focus on scientific research and we therefore only present information to the media directly based on this research. For that reason I'm sorry to tell you that we don't want to examine your questions.

Best regards,

Frank Vos

Again, bolding emphasis added. Hmmm, feels a lot like the replies we get from the National Transportation Safety Board and the FBI. First Mr. Vos acknowedges NLR demonstrated/recreated a reported event on 9/11 due to a request made by journalists, when asked to clarify, Mr. Vos now claims it's against NLR policy to contribute? Contradict much?

Our final reply to Mr. Vos,

Dear Mr Vos,

I am sorry to hear that you "Don't want to examine our questions".

If your organization is truly interested in science, you may want to research the Flight Data Recorder information being provided by the NTSB which has since been released through the Freedom Of Information Act since your simulation test. It does not support the 9/11 Commission version of events. It has been examined by US Certified Aircraft Accident Investigators (including a former USAF Accident Investigation Board President), FDR Experts, Boeing Simulator Experts and High time pilots (including several who have actual flight time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, all 4).

Also, according to the data, topography and obstacles, it is impossible for a 757 to have performed the maneuver as claimed by the 9/11 Commission. Again, examined by the above certified professionals. The NTSB and FBI refuse to comment.

Considering your simulator was not certified, the crash logic disabled, and the video admits Mr Ruigrok had "practice" based on speculation that "Hani probably did too", this is not consistent with scientific research.

I thank you for taking the time to review our questions. Once again, I'm sorry you "Don't want to examine them".

Although, you may want to examine the information and data for yourself. Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Rob BalsamoCo-Founderpilotsfor911truth.org

If anyone would like to email Mr. Vos for inquiry, please feel free, although you may not get much of an answer. dfvos@nlr.nl

I mentioned this particular flight to a roommate who almost got his single engine license once a very long time ago, who replied Hajour could have studied Microsoft Flight Simulator, even after I told him Hani Hajour was physically incapable of controlling a Cessna 172 at 65 KIAS. That was when I told him what to do with Microsoft and that wasn't just because I drive a Mac. Then I mentioned even if he had been highly proficient on the 172, there would still be transition time for a larger, multi engine jet. Even if he supposedly had no intent to land the aircraft safely, getting it to the target required many of the same skills, talents and abilities. Not that I believe for a single moment that was what happened.

I've started haranguing my members of congress about a new, independent, objective investigation and will probably start sending out letters to the editor. I'm told there was a vote in New York for a new investigation that lost 48 to 63. I don't see it as a loss, so much as 48 more who probably would not have voted for it on 12 Sept 2001.

I happened to mention my disbelief of the official story to another traveler at LAX and his response was, "you aren't the only one who doesn't believe that BS, brother!"

when i used to run my blog, there were a few agents who argued vociferously that anyone could walk into a 757/767 office and immediately take control.

and they didn't want to hear otherwise. i gave up finally. i was subjected to unending trolling. very few citizens have ever eyeballed an "office". they don't have a clue how complex and intimidating it is unless one is very familiar with it.

and i am finding that the numbers who doubt the official story are growing.

my most interesting sources during my recent visits to manhattan have been my limo drivers. many of whom were in that part of manhattan that day and witnessed the destruction. without prodding, they asked me what i thought about that day. when i expressed my skepticism regarding the official story. they all responded, "how did you get to where we have been?"

I mentioned this particular flight to a roommate who almost got his single engine license once a very long time ago, who replied Hajour could have studied Microsoft Flight Simulator, even after I told him Hani Hajour was physically incapable of controlling a Cessna 172 at 65 KIAS. That was when I told him what to do with Microsoft and that wasn't just because I drive a Mac. Then I mentioned even if he had been highly proficient on the 172, there would still be transition time for a larger, multi engine jet. Even if he supposedly had no intent to land the aircraft safely, getting it to the target required many of the same skills, talents and abilities. Not that I believe for a single moment that was what happened.

I've started haranguing my members of congress about a new, independent, objective investigation and will probably start sending out letters to the editor. I'm told there was a vote in New York for a new investigation that lost 48 to 63. I don't see it as a loss, so much as 48 more who probably would not have voted for it on 12 Sept 2001.

I happened to mention my disbelief of the official story to another traveler at LAX and his response was, "you aren't the only one who doesn't believe that BS, brother!"

You do understand that not only was Hani a certified commercial pilot, the FBO that would not let him fly the Hudson Corridor rented him a plane the very next day as well as several other FBO's? Did you also know that he had heavy simulator time at Pan Am? I've flown th MD80 sim at the old MD school in Long Beach several years before I ever even took a demo flight in a 172. I was able to take off and land with little instruction from the intructor who was a friend of the family. It's not that hard. I was able to put a heavy on a 150 foot wide runway. Hitting the Pentagon is childs play.

I was under the impression he wasn't qualified. I stand corrected. I do know there was one of the accused hijackers the flight school wasn't comfortable with soloing in their aircraft.---------------------------------

QUOTE (lapman @ Oct 18 2009, 04:13 AM)

You do understand that not only was Hani a certified commercial pilot, the FBO that would not let him fly the Hudson Corridor rented him a plane the very next day as well as several other FBO's? Did you also know that he had heavy simulator time at Pan Am? I've flown th MD80 sim at the old MD school in Long Beach several years before I ever even took a demo flight in a 172. I was able to take off and land with little instruction from the intructor who was a friend of the family. It's not that hard. I was able to put a heavy on a 150 foot wide runway. Hitting the Pentagon is childs play.

How does a pilot earn a Commercial certificate with the "barest understanding of the instruments"? I won't even get into the Language requirements in which FAA Ops Inspector "John Anthony" recommended an interpreter to an alleged "Commercial pilot" instead of a 709 ride.

And you call yourself a "skeptic" lapman? No, you are a GL who finds any excuse to believe the govt story.(for those unfamiliar, lapman is a regular at the govt loyalist site. Haven't been there in a while myself as the place is mostly a romper room now with kids photoshopping pictures all day, but I remember his userID from there)

QUOTE (lapman @ Oct 20 2009, 01:13 AM)

Hitting the Pentagon is childs play.

Lapman, try reading the article next time...

"Keep in mind, jumping in any old simulator attempting to hit the Pentagon is very easy to do. The Pentagon is one of the largest buildings in the world. But for the purpose of this recreation attempt, the Dutch researchers claim they are a "...technological institute [focusing] on scientific research and.. therefore only present information to the media directly based on this research" (See email exchanges below). NLR claims to be presenting a scientific approach for the purpose of performing the maneuvers reported and impacting the area of the Pentagon attacked, concluding the attack as possible.""Conclusion - It took 3 tries on video to get it close. How many times did Mr. Ruigrok "practice" prior as the video admits? The simulator crash logic being disabled is a major factor as the simulator would have crashed long before getting to the Pentagon due to excessive speed (See "9/11: World Trade Center Attack"). The over speed warning also being disabled is another major factor as it's a huge distraction to the pilot while flying. Combined with the fact the light poles on Washington Blvd are missing and the fact the simulator is not that of a 757, how can anyone take such recreation for this purpose (ad-hoc and incidental) as scientific?"

Lapman, please review the forum rules. This will be your only warning.

I used to get angry when I saw comments like Lapmanīs. Now I just feel pity.Loyalists are like stubborn kids that refuse to believe Santa doesnīt exist.

Could you imagine if WE were pushing their arguments to expose an inside job?

Hani Hanjur could have pulled this manouevre because..umm..I say so. Never mind the massive number of instructors who totally ran him into the ground. I rest my case.

Of course Lloyd englandīs story is true. It is perfectly feasible that that bigass pole skewered his cab and didnīt damage his bonnet. Nobody saw it? What about the unidentified īsilent strangerī?He admitted on camera īit was plannedī? Ummm...Lloyd is a senile old man and should not be listened to...apart from when he backs up my argument. Case closed.

Of course Flight 93 buried itself halfway into the ground. Pff..why would you doubt it?

Corraborative NOC testimony? They are all wrong. My reasoning? We have the governmentīs word on plane parts and DNA. Next!

The gatecam is not fraudulent. Yes, one witness saw this low level flightpath with the white plume..the camera.

Yes the ASCE report claims that 1000šC temperatures were reached in the Pentagon. Thatīs why it collapsed. How was the DNA identified? Unimaginable technology. Didnīt a passenger strapped into his plane seat survive this Danteīs inferno?

Yes I will admit we had our thumbs up our asses that morning and had absolutely no air defences.

CRAZY that Arab extremists had the ability, total professionalism and knowledge of transponders, radar blindspots and safety through the coincidental wargames exercise which rendered NORAD helpless. AND the incredible pilotting skills that had 75% (or maybe 100%) succes rate. But it happened.

Aaaaaaaaaaagghhh!!!!

So Rob. please donīt ban this guy. He helps our cause more than you can imagine!

Excellent post btw.All these half-baked īscientificī experiments have got to be exposed. Ridiculous.

I was under the impression he wasn't qualified. I stand corrected. I do know there was one of the accused hijackers the flight school wasn't comfortable with soloing in their aircraft.---------------------------------

Actually PC, you don't "stand corrected" IMHO. I didn't see a single source in post #4 above on Hani's credentials. I think this is the jist of what OSS was getting to above.

EDIT: Looks like AC called "lapman'"s post at #3. Maybe he should try for that "Million Dollar Challenge."

EDIT2: According to the Illusionist forum, we might be dealing with this:

since alot has been made of mr.bernard's (out of context) quote, i have a list of less than 5 questions that should be posed to him and that (if he answers them) should clear up his real stance on hanjour once and for all:

1- alot has been made of your OCT2001 comment about hani hanjour and how easily he could have crashed a plane, do you remember that comment sir?

2- this is the quote - "BERNARD: We believe that even though he didn't necessarily have experience in jets, that once the airplane was airborne, that he could have easily pointed it in any direction he wanted to, and crashed it into a building or whatever would be a real feasibility, real possibility."

3- at the time that you made the above comment, were you aware of the final spiralling/looping maneuver that flight 77 comitted prior to crashing into the pentagon?

4- given the current-day knowledge of that final spiralling maneuver, do you think hanjour could have pilotted such a maneuver in a commercial sized craft - a 757?

5- also, could you comment on the controversy comes from the apparent contradiction between your 2001 statement (about the ease with which hanjour could have crashed a plane) and the fact that you doubted hani's flying skills so much that you would NOT rent him a plane.

It looks like you guys have already done a good job of thanking these Dutchmen for coming to the party, giving them a nice pat on the ass, and sending them and their two cent's worth on their way.

All I can add is that they are just like Legge, trying to prove something that is meaningless in the first place. I think everyone can agree that it is not impossible for an inexperienced pilot to perform the flight maneuver1" (my emphasis added). Sure, Hani could have gotten almost miraculously lucky and that makes this stunt "not impossible", but it remains well nigh impossible, as a practical matter impossible. Stated another way - Hani has the same vanishingly small chance of success that Painter, Dmole or I would have.

Instead of settling on "not impossible", they could have avoided these implications by concluding that their data suggested a 1 in 3 chance of success, or found reasons to discount it to say, 1 in 6, or 10, or whatever. But for some reason they didn't even try to quantify their conclusion and just said "not impossible". This choice of words looks very deliberate, designed to say exactly what they mean and no more; unfortunately, when you think it through what they mean is meaningless.

We have seen this pattern before. The body of the paper contains numbers for GL's and others to seize on and spread along with the claim that those "1 in 3" numbers are the real conclusion instead of the unquantified and meaningless "not impossible". But they don't base their conclusion on the numbers and instead state their conclusion in the weakest possible form so that the proposition is not entirely negated. Structural Failure Caused By Hot Jet Fuel Fires and The South Flight Path seem to be the result of similar techniques where direct statements of untenable conclusions were avoided and instead things were sprinkled out that enabled others to conjure the same conclusions.

______________1. I suppose "flight maneuver" includes (1) the tight, steeply descending 330 degree turn that ended bearing straight on target at low altitude; (2) keeping the 77 foot high target in sight even though it was in a hole with the 9:30 AM sun in the eyes; (3) flying 300 feet or less above ground at about 300 knots for a considerable time and distance while missing several tall buildings; (4) then dropping the plane into the hole at 300 knots to a final altitude that is both (a) high enough to not mark the grass and miss 8 foot high coils; and (B) low enough to dash the entire plane (?40 foot from engine bottom to tail top?) on the building without striking the top 15 feet of its wall. Hmm . . . 8 plus 40 plus 15 equals 63 feet, so there is a 14 foot high margin for error at 300 knots.

Stated another way - Hani has the same vanishingly small chance of success that Painter, Dmole or I would have.

Hi TN!

Actually, I have hundreds/thousands of [virtual] hours "flying" [PC] combat helicopters (Apache, Comanche, and Russian Mi-24 Hind). I even managed to shoot down TWO F-16's (using "squirrely," dirty, "rattle-n-roll" tactics) on one "mission".

As I recall, I was "flying" an AH-64A Apache gunship, loaded TO THE NUTZ! I had noticed these 2 F-16's circling the base on earlier missions, and since it was ALL SIMULATION ANYWAY, I thought- Hell- let's do a little "bird" hunting...

I chose my "loadout" pretty carefully with 2 Stingers, dual rocket pods, and the "balance" was Hellfire missiles. Because of the "blue vs. red" thing, I had to blow up a General's HumVee (with him in it)- that brought the first F-16 to drop FAST and low, and he got on my "6." I tried to "shake and bake," but his aircraft was much better suited than the Apache.

So I "hit pedal" and yawed ~180 degrees, and sent about 6-10 2.75-inch FFAR rockets RIGHT INTO his nostril. BLOWED THE FUCK UP, CHUCK! I got a "radio message" that everyone was now after me, and so I decided to go looking for that 2nd F-16.

He had "hit the roof" by then, so I climbed, and climbed, and climbed until I hit that spot where my rotor blades no-worky-so-good-no-more (about 10,500 aMSL, IIRC), then I tried to "chase" the F-16. Once I fired my 30mm cannon, that got his attention and he started to dive to my level. He got pretty close and sent 2 Sidewinders my way (and they weren't all that easy to dodge up in the thin air), and I send a Sidewinder after him. He "popped flares" and I missed.

Then I tried [unsuccessfully] at lobbing the rest of my 2.75" FFAR unguided rockets at him, and it mainly made an interesting [mid-day] fireworks display. I blazed most of my 30mm cannon rounds too. Then he dove for some reason, and I watched that last Sidewinder eventually smoke it's way up his ass.2 Falcons down.

Long story short- we all can do "amazing" things in an electronic simulator. Pt 2- I might be better "qualified" than either you or painter here, TN!

Actually, I have hundreds/thousands of [virtual] hours "flying" [PC] combat helicopters (Apache, Comanche, and Russian Mi-24 Hind). I even managed to shoot down TWO F-16's (using "squirrely," dirty, "rattle-n-roll" tactics) on one "mission".

Well . . . I see your a real Top Gun. Sorry for including you on my list of incompetent pilots!

QUOTE

As I recall, I was "flying" . . .

Oh No! Not another War Story! Excuse me, I have to go see if that new coat of paint is drying . . .

I watched the full show, with sound, and according the narrator Ruigrok was capable of flying small airplanes, and had practiced the 330-degree turn. That's a big different between them.. They also say, that they think, Hani did some practice in a simulator also. I can't believe that someone who wants to fly a airplane in a building is going to practice such a turn, but instead just practice to fly straight into the building..

Full Video (50min), The original broadcast on Dutch national tv: September 10, 2006, created by Zembla(NL)

I watched the full show, with sound, and according the narrator Ruigrok was capable of flying small airplanes, and had practiced the 330-degree turn. That's a big different between them.. They also say, that they think, Hani did some practice in a simulator also. I can't believe that someone who wants to fly a airplane in a building is going to practice such a turn, but instead just practice to fly straight into the building..

Full Video (50min), The original broadcast on Dutch national tv: September 10, 2006, created by Zembla(NL)

Thanks for the link Xymtrix.The narrator said the programme would be īunbiasedī As the guys have said here, there was no topography and no obstacles to consider in that sim.The G forces from the VDOT tower werenīt taken into account (from FDR data)So itīs not worth the sweat.

Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Oct 21 2009, 03:06 PM)

______________1. I suppose "flight maneuver" includes (1) the tight, steeply descending 330 degree turn that ended bearing straight on target at low altitude; (2) keeping the 77 foot high target in sight even though it was in a hole with the 9:30 AM sun in the eyes; (3) flying 300 feet or less above ground at about 300 knots for a considerable time and distance while missing several tall buildings; (4) then dropping the plane into the hole at 300 knots to a final altitude that is both (a) high enough to not mark the grass and miss 8 foot high coils; and (B) low enough to dash the entire plane (?40 foot from engine bottom to tail top?) on the building without striking the top 15 feet of its wall. Hmm . . . 8 plus 40 plus 15 equals 63 feet, so there is a 14 foot high margin for error at 300 knots.

According to the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY, Hani Hanjour had the aircraft in a banking and descending right turn in his never witnessed by anybody loop over Virginia. For at least half of that loop, the Pentagon would have been out of sight and blind to the pilot. How could an inexperienced pilot finish that loop pointed directly at the Pentagon without a huge noticable correction to the flight path? It looks like a nice smooth turn into the Pentagon by a highly experienced remote pilot with an excellent satellite birds eye view of the area.

Of course in the real flight path, the Pentagon would always be visible to the pilot (inside the cockpit or flying remote).